Madras High Court
M. Anandhakumar vs S.P. Manickam on 21 October, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
CMA.No.1373 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.1373 of 2023
M. Anandhakumar .... Appellant
vs.
1. S.P. Manickam
2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited,
2nd Floor, Dare House,
2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001.
3. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem-7. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 18.08.2022 in
M.C.O.P.505/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr. I. Siddiq
For R1 : Ms.S.Kiruthika
For R2 : Mr.J. Michael Visuvasam
For R3 : Mr. D. Nitin
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1373 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.505/2018 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri,
and he filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries
sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 17.06.2016.
2. The case of the claimant is that on 17.06.2016, he was
driving a bus bearing Registration number TN-30-N-117, belonging to
the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, on Thiruvannamalai-Hosur
Road and at about 2.30 a.m., a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52-F-
9127, belonging to the first respondent, was going ahead of him. Since
the driver of the lorry suddenly applied brake in the middle of the road,
the claimant rammed the lorry and sustained injuries.
2.1. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52-F-9127 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the cause of the accident and that since the said lorry was insured with the
second respondent, the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company
Limited, Chennai, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to him.
3. In the Tribunal the owner of the lorry remained absent and
was set ex parte. The second and third respondents contested the claim
petition by filing their counter.
4. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record,
fastened negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the claimant
in the ratio 40:60 and directed the second respondent Insurance company
to pay compensation of Rs.1,28,900/- (40% of the total compensation of
Rs.3,22,243/-) to the claimant together with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.
5. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the Tribunal, the present
appeal is filed by the claimant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Heard Mr. I. Siddiq, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, Ms. S. Kiruthika, learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent, Mr.J. Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent and Mr. D. Nitin, learned counsel appearing for the
third respondent.
7. Mr. I. Siddiq, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that though the driver of the lorry suddenly applied brake in the
middle of the road, the Tribunal had wrongly fastened negligence on the
part of the claimant to the extent of 60%. He also contended that the
Tribunal has not awarded just compensation to the claimant and therefore,
prayed for enhancement of the same.
8. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents
contended that the Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, had
awarded just compensation and therefore the same need not be disturbed
in the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Negligence
9. It is seen from the records that the accident took place on the
National Highways and the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52-F-9127
was going ahead of the bus driven by the claimant. The driver of the bus
should have maintained a minimum distance from the lorry as per the
traffic rules. Had the claimant followed the traffic rules, he could have
averted the accident. He had infact hit the lorry from behind as a result of
which he sustained injuries. Considering the manner of accident, the
Tribunal had rightly fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the
lorry and the claimant in the ratio 40:60 and therefore, I do not see any
reason to interfere with the same.
Quantum
9.1. The Medical Board attached to Krishnagiri Head Quarters
Hospital assessed the partial permanent disability of the claimant as 40%.
However, the Tribunal had reduced it to 35% without any basis.
Therefore, the partial permanent disability of the claimant is taken up as
40% as assessed by the Medical Board. Since there is no functional
disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,57,500/- towards partial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
permanent disability by fixing a sum of Rs.4,500/- per percentage of
disability. Considering the age of the claimant and the year of accident,
a sum of Rs.5,000/- per percentage of disability is awarded. Hence, a sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- (40x5000) is awarded towards partial permanent
disability.
9.2. The following tabular column would show the amount
awarded by the Tribunal and the amount awarded by this Court under
various heads.
S.No. Description Amount Amount
awarded by awarded by this
Tribunal (Rs.) Court (Rs.)
1. Partial permanent 1,57,500/- 2,00,000/-
disability (35x4500) (40x5000)
2. Medical expenses 43,343/- 43,343/-
3. Loss of income 45,000/- 45,000/-
4. Pain and sufferings 30,000/- 30,000/-
5. Transportation 17,400/- 17,400/-
expenses
6. Extra nourishment 3,000/- 3,000/-
7. Damages to the 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No. Description Amount Amount
awarded by awarded by this
Tribunal (Rs.) Court (Rs.)
8. Attender charges 15,000/- 15,000/-
9. Loss of amenities 10,000/- 10,000/-
Total 3,22,243/- 3,64,743/-
Less:60% 1,93,346/- 2,18,846/-
contributory
negligence
Compensation 1,28,897/- 1,45,897/-
awarded Rounded off to
1,28,900/-
9.3. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced to Rs.1,45,897/- that would carry interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum.
10. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.1,45,897/- (40% of the total compensation amount of
Rs.3,64,743/-).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
iii. The appellant / claimant is directed to pay court fee for the
enhanced compensation amount, if any, and the Registry is directed
to draft the decree only after receipt of Court fee.
iv. The second Respondent, the Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount of Rs.1,45,897/- (less the amount
already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the
credit of M.C.O.P.505/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri, within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order/uploading of this order.
v. On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is at liberty to
withdraw the same, after following due process of law.
21.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
bga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri.
2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited,
2nd Floor, Dare House,
2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001.
3. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem-7.
4. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.HEMALATHA, J.
bga
21.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
